Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

COSTS: Cawdery Kaye Fireman and Taylor v Minkin [2012] EWCA Civ 546

Sep 29, 2018, 21:31 PM
Slug : 2012EWCACiv546
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 8, 2012, 09:07 AM
Article ID : 98781

(Court of Appeal; Ward, Stanley Burnton, Elias LJJ, Senior Costs Judge Master Hurst; 1 May 2012)

The husband instructed solicitors during divorce proceedings and received a quote of £3000 plus vat for representation in hearing of his wife's application for a non-molestation and ouster order. Proceedings were far more complicated than anticipated and the solicitors sent the husband a bill for £5,472.50. The husband refused to pay and the solicitors ceased working on his behalf. The costs judge found the husband had reasonable justification for not paying his bill because the solicitors had suspended work on the husband's case and the bill exceeded the estimate.

The solicitors' appeal was upheld because the husband had no advance warning that the bill would exceed the estimate and the solicitors in breach of contract in terminating their services.

The appeal to the Court of appeal was allowed. The solicitors' standard terms of business included with the initial quote stated that the quote was not fixed or binding and could vary depending on the complexity of the case. It was not reasonable for the husband to expect the solicitors to wait for payment until he had a costs order in his favour. The unexpected complications could not justify non-payment of the bill. The husband was obliged to pay as per the terms of business.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from